“They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God given rights then what’s left?” Santorum asked and an audience member offered, “Communism!”

“The French Revolution,” Santorum answered. “What’s left is a government that gives you rights. What’s left are no unalienable rights. What’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we are a long way from that, but if we do follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”

I had so many different issues with this episode, it's hard to name them all, Dan. Inalienable rights come from god? No. They are emergent principles of human nature, ergo "human" rights. If you want to say that comes from god, that's your business. But god didn't have a damn thing to do with it from my perspective, or from the perspective of the constitution, which does not mention god anywhere in the text.

...and if you had read the other thread, you would have understood the argument instead of stepping on a rake in a cartoonish fashion.

Last edited by RAnthony on Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

“They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God given rights then what’s left?” Santorum asked and an audience member offered, “Communism!”

Ah that is funny, remove religion from a country and you get Communism HA. Actually i was involved in that thread, and Dan stated that he meant nothing by it, it was a throw away line like "God Damn".

Discount the above posts feeble attempts to defend Dan because i have a better way. Recently i have been listening to a lot of Hitchens debates about religion, in them he is often asked alot of questions about why famous scientist used the word god, his response was that it proves how primitive our language is that we don't have a better word to better describe things that are so awe inspiring. I would say that Dans use of the term "God given rights" shows that our language is primitive, Dan didn't mean a all powerful celestial dictator when he said God, he meant some thing that goes above human laws.

Runicmadhamster wrote:Discount the above posts feeble attempts to defend Dan because i have a better way. Recently i have been listening to a lot of Hitchens debates about religion, in them he is often asked alot of questions about why famous scientist used the word god, his response was that it proves how primitive our language is that we don't have a better word to better describe things that are so awe inspiring. I would say that Dans use of the term "God given rights" shows that our language is primitive, Dan didn't mean a all powerful celestial dictator when he said God, he meant some thing that goes above human laws.

You mean like "awe-some"?

awe·some adjective1. inspiring awe: an awesome sight.2. showing or characterized by awe.3. Slang . very impressive: That new white convertible is totally awesome.

Time to reclaim the word from these guys:

"Boethius was the only user here to successfully piss me off IRL, and you'll notice it's been crickets from him for a while. I'm not saying he's dead now . . . but . . ." -- DBTrek

"How about you just suck on a cyanide lollipop and spare us your fucking hyperbole you whining little nancy?" -- Cid

Runicmadhamster wrote:Discount the above posts feeble attempts to defend Dan because i have a better way. Recently i have been listening to a lot of Hitchens debates about religion, in them he is often asked alot of questions about why famous scientist used the word god, his response was that it proves how primitive our language is that we don't have a better word to better describe things that are so awe inspiring. I would say that Dans use of the term "God given rights" shows that our language is primitive, Dan didn't mean a all powerful celestial dictator when he said God, he meant some thing that goes above human laws.

You mean like "awe-some"?

awe·some adjective1. inspiring awe: an awesome sight.2. showing or characterized by awe.3. Slang . very impressive: That new white convertible is totally awesome.

Time to reclaim the word from these guys:

OK maybe awesome wasnt the best word to use, prehaps Dan can elaborate.

Runicmadhamster wrote:Dan didn't mean a all powerful celestial dictator when he said God, he meant some thing that goes above human laws.

I'm genuinely interested in an atheist's opinion about what this "thing" is.

Well like Hitchens said (and this is only my view, it may not be the view of the others) our vocabulary isn't evolved enough for me to properly describe what the thing it, it often leaves atheists borrowing from the theists vocabulary because, while we don't believe in god, we dont have a word that has the weight of the word god. I suppose in relation to your question it refers to rights that have been with humanity since we first became socially aware animals, that's a piss poor way of describing it but its the best i can do.

sventoby wrote:Am I missing something or is he saying that rights can't exist without religion and using the pre-revolutionary French Monarchy as his example?

That's what he is saying, yes. That is the argument that relying on phrases such as 'god given rights' enables.

Hamster and Dan are both OK with enabling these types of bullshit arguments, as well. More than happy to use 'throw away' phrases and tiptoe around the religious and the clueless (damn repeating myself again) for fear of upsetting too many people, I guess.

Human rights or Emergent principles of human nature; they are essential parts of what makes us human, and therefore cannot be removed from us as long as we live. they are by there very nature greater than law, greater than a bronze age prayer-answering skyman even, because they predate both those concepts and the language they are formed from. We cannot be human without them. One might even go so far as to suggest that you cannot be human if you deny them...

Last edited by RAnthony on Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

sventoby wrote:Am I missing something or is he saying that rights can't exist without religion and using the pre-revolutionary French Monarchy as his example?

That's what he is saying, yes. That is the argument that relying on phrases such as 'god given rights' enables.

Hamster and Dan are both OK with enabling these types of bullshit arguments, as well. More than happy to use 'throw away' phrases and tiptoe around the religious and the clueless (damn repeating myself again) for fear of upsetting too many people, I guess.

Human rights or Emergent principals of human nature; they are essential parts of what makes us human, and therefore cannot be removed from us as long as we live. they are by there very nature greater than law, greater than a bronze age prayer-answering skyman even, because they predate both those concepts and the language they are formed from. We cannot be human without them. One might even go so far as to suggest that you cannot be human if you deny them...

Yes. You offered the argument that Dan was too lazy to actually craft language that didn't give cover to nutcases like Santorum. Two different version of the same argument. When Hitchens spoke, you'll notice that he didn't make the same lazy mistakes.

Last edited by RAnthony on Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson